Fallacies about Animal Research (vivisection)

by Dr. Charles Bell Taylor, M.D.

Fellow Royal College of Surgeons Edinburgh, Fellow
of the Medical Society, London, and late President Paris Medical Society.

Note: vivisection = experiments on live animals & humans. These usually
involve making "animal models" of disease, which do not naturally have
the real disease, but which have artificially created symptoms that are
similar to those of the disease.

Advances in Human Medicine:

"We are assured that great discoveries have been made by vivisectors
[animal researchers], but this statement is not in accordance with facts ...

It is not true that Harvey discovered the circulation of the blood
by vivisection. Harvey's discovery was entirely due to his observation
of the fact that the valves of the veins in the dead human body permitted
the blood to flow only in one direction; vivisection had nothing to do
with it. It is not true that Hunter was led to the adoption of of his
treatment for aneurism by experiments on animals. Hunter was led to the
adoption of his treatment solely by observation of the fact that the artery
in close vicinity to the aneurism was frequently too diseased to bear
a ligature, hence he thought it wise to place it further off. Vivisection
had nothing whatsoever to do with it...

There is not a word of truth in the oft-repeated assertion
that Galvani discovered the properties of electricity by vivisection [that
is, research on live animals]. Galvani's discovery was due to accident
and careful observation of the effects of electricity on a dead frog;
vivisection had nothing to do with it...

It is not true that Sir James Simpson discovered the anaesthetic
properties of chloroform by experiments on dogs: Simpson experimented
upon himself. Chloroform is so fatal to dogs that if he had tried it first
on these animals he would never have tried it on man.

It is not true that
Lister was led to the adoption of his antiseptic treatment of wounds by
vivisection. Antiseptics were used in the treatment of wounds long before
his time, and his experiments were made upon the wounds, bruises and putrefying
sores of patients in the hospitals of Edinburgh, Glasgow and London.

It is not true that the great advances in medicine and surgery
are due to experiments on animals; they are due to the discovery of anaesthetics
and to the use of antiseptics; vivisection had nothing whatever to do
with it.

It is not true that we owe our knowledge of drugs to experiments
on animals. The effect of drugs upon animals is so entirely different
from their effect upon man that no safe conclusions can be drawn from
such investigations.

It is not true that Von Graefe discovered a cure for glaucoma
by vivisection; his discovery was entirely the result of clinical observation
of hospital patients. Vivisection had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

And it is not true, notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, that Ferrier
has succeeded in localising the functions of the brain by experiments
on monkeys. Ferrier himself says: "Experiments on animals, even on apes,
often lead to conclusions seriously at variance with the well-established
facts of clinical and pathological observation." ...

It is not true that Pasteur has discovered a cure for rabies (hydrophobia). Pasteur does not cure rabies; as the late Professor Peter
has remarked, "he gives it", and it is a fact that the deaths from rabies
have increased both in France and in England ever since he adopted his
supremely ridiculous system of inoculating people with it.

It is not true that Pasteur has discovered a cure for anthrax.
Pasteur does not cure anthrax, he gives it, and his system has been condemned
by the English, the German, and the Hungarian Scientific Commissions who
have sat to consider it, while the loss to France is counted by millions
ever since his system was adopted in that country.

It is not true that Koch has discovered a cure for tuberculosis (consumption); on the contrary his inoculations have led to death from
initial fever, and the infection of the whole system of patients who merely
suffered from localised disease...

We are assured that it
is impossible for science to advance unless experiments are made upon
animals, but this statement is not true."

Similar Articles:

Why Do Pharmaceutical
Drugs Injure & Kill Millions of Humans?Are We the Real "Guinea-pigs"? . . . Medical journals report that pharmaceutical
drugs injure millions and kill hundreds of thousands of people each year. This article
explains how drug companies: i) use flexible unscientific tests to make their products
look "safe"; ii) can then use those flexible tests as a legal defence to avoid punishment.

A History of Western Medicine: From ancient Greece to modern times ... a summary of how human medicine:
i) advanced due to scientific clinical observations of humans; and
ii) was regularly stalled and led astray for millenia due to misleading results from vivisection ... excerpts from a book by the medical historian Hans Ruesch.

Doctors Against Vivisection on Scientific & Medical Grounds (vivisection = animal research, animal experiments, animals testing
on live animals or humans). These doctors explain that vivisection is misleading and very damaging to human medicine. Furthermore, that it is not done for science but for commercial reasons to help insure companies against law suits from humans who are damaged by medical treatment.

Recommended Organisations:

Physicians Committee
for Responsible Medicine: Group of doctors, physicians and
health practitioners promoting good health through real science. http://www.pcrm.org